[teejers1]

Okay, what gives you (and burger, and maybe others here) the conviction that Silva is even as good as MOC, let alone better?
That's a serious question.
Silva had a couple bad TOs (one ending in a layup the other way) and was schooled by the opposing PG on a few consecutive possessions.  Yeah, Silva flashes a nice no-look on occasion . . . but honestly, I think some fans are blinded by the occasional eyebrow-raising play, and just ignore the brutal plays.

I'm not saying Silva won't be a better PG down the road, or isn't perhaps comparable now.  
But I'm honestly surprised at the confidence some have here in proclaiming that Silva has to start, is PG of the future, etc.
From this angle, MOC is stronger, a better defender, as good a shooter, and as good an assist man.

It's not so much that I'm super high on Silva at this very moment (unlike Ingram and Raynaud), but the kid is a true freshman and has shown flashes such that I think his ceiling is multitudes higher than O'Connell's. Yeah, Silva had some sloppy turnovers tonight, but I can live with it at the moment given the upside and the good things. Having said that, I'm mostly just low on O'Connell. Frankly, he's just not very good. Not a consistent playmaker and doesn't initiate the offense other than mostly to dribble it up and make a perimeter pass. When he drives into the lane too often he either forces something that isn't there (turnover) or he gets blocked. He is unathletic. His shot is spotty. His passing is meh. To be fair, I did say he was the least bad on my list of "non-Pac-12 quality" guys. He should be playing 6-8 minutes a game as a back-up for us, and it would be less than that for a genuinely good Pac-12 team.

So in your world, that means Silva for 32-34 minutes a game.  Enough said. We aren't going to agree on this topic.  At least barring a whole lot of additional information coming in.

I can't help but notice your group "not Pac 12 quality guys" and what they have in common.  Look, I'm as guilty as the next guy in accepting hoops stereotypes, and if you throw in "walk on" vs. scholie player on top of that, well . . . how does Beskind even get on the court, right?  But tell me, has Beskind looked outclassed to you in games yet?  Has he been torched on D?  And more specifically, any moreso than other perimeter players on the roster? 

There was only one perimeter guy that was repeatedly abused tonight on D, and that was your boy, Silva.  But that's okay - gonna happen sometimes, especially to newbies.  And his D wasn't horrible (unlike when the SJSU player Ingram was guarding just dribbled from the top off a screen for uncontested layups the other night - that was on Ingram or the big guarding the screener).  Valpo PG took a lot of shots and was feisty.

If you want to say Stanford is offensively challenged and needs its best 5 scorers out there . . . okay.  That would be Ingram, Raynaud, Delaire, a PG (I'd take MOC, you'd take Silva), and . . . um . . . Jones?  It wouldn't surprise me at all if in practice Murrell is a big scorer, and maybe Angel, and Taitz, too (their strokes looked sweet tonight).  The point is:  it's not like there is a Clear Cut 5, followed by 2 or 3 other guys.  The mosh pit is pretty mixed right now.  But it will get sorted out, presumably, as time goes on.

Last point:  little concerned about Delaire's body language, etc. on the court . . . and I'll just leave it at that.

[teejers1]

Okay, what gives you (and burger, and maybe others here) the conviction that Silva is even as good as MOC, let alone better?
That's a serious question.
Silva had a couple bad TOs (one ending in a layup the other way) and was schooled by the opposing PG on a few consecutive possessions.  Yeah, Silva flashes a nice no-look on occasion . . . but honestly, I think some fans are blinded by the occasional eyebrow-raising play, and just ignore the brutal plays.

I'm not saying Silva won't be a better PG down the road, or isn't perhaps comparable now.  
But I'm honestly surprised at the confidence some have here in proclaiming that Silva has to start, is PG of the future, etc.
From this angle, MOC is stronger, a better defender, as good a shooter, and as good an assist man.

It's not so much that I'm super high on Silva at this very moment (unlike Ingram and Raynaud), but the kid is a true freshman and has shown flashes such that I think his ceiling is multitudes higher than O'Connell's. Yeah, Silva had some sloppy turnovers tonight, but I can live with it at the moment given the upside and the good things. Having said that, I'm mostly just low on O'Connell. Frankly, he's just not very good. Not a consistent playmaker and doesn't initiate the offense other than mostly to dribble it up and make a perimeter pass. When he drives into the lane too often he either forces something that isn't there (turnover) or he gets blocked. He is unathletic. His shot is spotty. His passing is meh. To be fair, I did say he was the least bad on my list of "non-Pac-12 quality" guys. He should be playing 6-8 minutes a game as a back-up for us, and it would be less than that for a genuinely good Pac-12 team.

So in your world, that means Silva for 32-34 minutes a game.  Enough said. We aren't going to agree on this topic.  At least barring a whole lot of additional information coming in.

I can't help but notice your group "not Pac 12 quality guys" and what they have in common.  Look, I'm as guilty as the next guy in accepting hoops stereotypes, and if you throw in "walk on" vs. scholie player on top of that, well . . . how does Beskind even get on the court, right?  But tell me, has Beskind looked outclassed to you in games yet?  Has he been torched on D?  And more specifically, any moreso than other perimeter players on the roster? 

There was only one perimeter guy that was repeatedly abused tonight on D, and that was your boy, Silva.  But that's okay - gonna happen sometimes, especially to newbies.  And his D wasn't horrible (unlike when the SJSU player Ingram was guarding just dribbled from the top off a screen for uncontested layups the other night - that was on Ingram or the big guarding the screener).  Valpo PG took a lot of shots and was feisty.

If you want to say Stanford is offensively challenged and needs its best 5 scorers out there . . . okay.  That would be Ingram, Raynaud, Delaire, a PG (I'd take MOC, you'd take Silva), and . . . um . . . Jones?  It wouldn't surprise me at all if in practice Murrell is a big scorer, and maybe Angel, and Taitz, too (their strokes looked sweet tonight).  The point is:  it's not like there is a Clear Cut 5, followed by 2 or 3 other guys.  The mosh pit is pretty mixed right now.  But it will get sorted out, presumably, as time goes on.

Last point:  little concerned about Delaire's body language, etc. on the court . . . and I'll just leave it at that.